Wisconsin native, conservative critic of everything.
"Once abolish the God, and the government becomes the God." ---G K Chesterton
"The only objective of Liberty is Life" --G K Chesterton
"Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions" --G K Chesterton
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

Sunday, December 16, 2012

And Here It Comes!

As more details emerge, it becomes clear that the Connecticut shooter was mentally ill. All of us have offered prayers for the parents, the faculty and staff, and their survivors.

...A bill to restrict the use and sale of weapons like the high-powered
Bushmaster .223 that coroners said had killed many of the children at
Sandy Hook, would be introduced in the next session of the US Congress,
promised senior Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein “It will ban the sale,
the transfer, the importation and the possession. Not retroactively but
prospectively. And it will ban the same for big clips, drums or strips
of more than 10 bullets,” she told NBC News, adding that she expected Mr
Obama to support the bill....

There is no logic to Feinstein's offer, of course. She would like us to forget that the Democrat Party was responsible for the "liberating" of the mentally ill a couple of dozen years ago, which allowed this deranged killer to do what he did. And the MSM laps up the terminology: "high-powered" is a laugh when one compares the .223 to common hunting rounds like the .308 and .30-06 or any of the "magnum" offerings in almost any cartridge.

(There are instances where derangement is obvious, and there are instances where the individual is simply a murderer. Let's leave that for another discussion. Having read a lot about the CT. killer, it seems clear that he is a genuine mental-illness type.)

A business associate who is a hunter went into a rant about 'multiple-bullet magazines' following this tragedy. So I asked him why his 4-round semi-auto .30-06 was acceptable whereas a 10-round semi-auto .223 (AR-15) was not, and he told me--in effect--that more-than-4-round magazines should be banned.

As if killing only 4 kids instead of 20 was ......I dunno.....more civilized?

Sorry. That doesn't pass the logic test any more than does Feinstein's proposal. So now we'll have to endure another 6-12 months of asinine argumentation--all because the Democrats shut down the asylums.

8 comments:

...deinstitutionalisation is the policy and practice of transferring homeless, involuntarily hospitalised mental patients from state mental hospitals into many different kinds of de facto psychiatric institutions funded largely by the federal government. These federally subsidised institutions began in the United States and were quickly adopted by most Western governments. The plan was set in motion by the Community Mental Health Act as a part of John F. Kennedy's legislation[clarification needed] and passed by the U.S. Congress in 1963...--Wiki

It was to be expected that after this tragedy, the knee-jerk reaction of certain people would be “more gun control” and “ban guns!” (Mayor Bloomberg et al.). So, following that logic, because some people drive drunk or irresponsibly (texting, etc.), we should ban cars…?

Aside from people who are mentally unstable and, if not treated, are liable to do mad things, underlying this and other instances is a widespread lack of respect for life - which we as a society have brought upon ourselves.

Starting with ‘legal’ abortion and continuing with ever-increasing violence in movies and video games, young people are steeped in killing as the solution to ‘problems’ and cannot distinguish between fantasy and reality.

We will never eliminate evil or tragedy in this life. But failure to teach what is right from what is wrong, what is moral from immorality, and leading by example, ensure that preventable tragedies will recur. We reap what we sow – or fail to sow.

The NRA will holler "Obama is coming to take away our guns!", which is equivalent to AAA hollering "they're going to take away our cars!" when a town board acts to reduce the speed limit on a dangerous stretch of road.

According to CBS and MSNBC, the rifle was left in the car and played no role in the shootings. So naturally it's the target of the legislation because... scary?

By the way, if you ban the possession "not retroactively, but prospectively," what does that mean? I won't be punished for the fact that I owned one yesterday, but from tomorrow on it's a crime? Or I can keep possessing it forever, but I can't sell it to anyone ever? And what happens in terms of inheritance? Does the government intend to at least provide eminent domain relief for property they make un-ownable?